Comparisons of risk perception in different countries and cultures

Bernd ROHRMANN (University of Melbourne)

= Project summary =

In a series of socio-psychological field studies, perceptions and subjective evaluations of risky activities and environmental conditions are investigated in several countries. The aim of this cross-cultural project is to analyze the cognitive structure of judgments about the magnitude and acceptability of risks to which individuals are exposed; to explore disparities between different societal groups; and to compare risk judgments across countries in which risk issues in general as well as particular risk sources (e.g., industrial facilities or natural hazards) have different salience.

Project CRC1: In a first series of studies, data were collected in Germany (N=217), New Zealand (N=224) and Australia (N=272). In each country, 4 groups of respondents were defined: people with a "technological", "monetarian", "ecological" or "feminist" orientation, representing societal sub-cultures. Participants were asked for judgments on 24 hazards (based on a taxonomy) according to 12 risk aspects (derived from a structural risk perception model).

Project CRC2: Aiming at a comparison of "western" and "eastern" countries, a modified data collection was conducted in China (N=270), and that study was fully repeated in Australia (N=203). Regarding hazards, 12 previously used items and 12 new items were included. The sampling focuses on 3 groups of students (i.e., Geography, Psychology, Engineering) and a group of scientists. In a second phase data were collected in Germany (N=235), Singapore (N=153), Canada (N=183) and Japan (N=197). This completed the project, to date the largest cross-national risk perception study

Project CRC3: In order to include South-American countries in risk perception research, a data collection in Argentina, Brazil and Chile was set up, using a modified version of the Rohrmann Hazard Evaluation Questionnaire HEQ. Currently the first of these studies, in BuenosAires/Argentina (N~130), is on hold because of staff amendments. The second one, in Recife/Brazil (N=160), was executed successfully. The third one, in Santiago/Chile, could not yet be realized.

Data comparisons for countries, for societal or professional groups and for types of risks yield multifarious differences (clickrpx-samplingfor the list of samples and click rpx-dat1and rpx-dat2andrpx-dat3for three result tables; full publication in preparation). The results so far demonstrate the strong influence of socio-psychological factors and the cultural quality of risk evaluations (clickrpx-modfor a model in which the principal structure of risk perception process is conceptualized). In 2013 a synopsis of the whole research program has been provided. The findings are valuable for a better understanding of societal risk controversies and designing comprehensive risk information, communication and education programs.